Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Secular or Islamic State? Dr Farouk and the Peacocks
- JAIS arrest of book distributor an abuse of power and disregards legal rights
- Statistics Manipulation Allegations
- Statement by Sin Chew Daily
- What should we call Afizal?
- Merdeka Day bash at Bukit Jalil Stadium
- Dinesh Could Have Been My Son
- Many reasons why it’s actually “Janji tak ditepati”
| Secular or Islamic State? Dr Farouk and the Peacocks Posted: 30 Aug 2012 11:37 AM PDT
What I find egregious about the attack on Dr Farouk by Imran Mustafa and Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil in The Bankruptcy of the Islamic vs Secular State Debate is their insinuation that they are "learned scholars and men and women of spiritual discernment and of pure and upright character; scholars and saints," while Dr Farouk is ignorant, superficial, devilish, pretentious, brazen, blind, debilitated, obeisant, simplistic, unreasonable, unfair, futile, inflexible, hypocritical, schizophrenic (I may have missed a few). Rama Ramanathan I do not know Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa, whom I believe is a medical doctor who lives in Kuala Lumpur. I do know that he is a Muslim who is being belittled and mocked by some others who also speak for Islam in Malaysia. I say this because soon after his 2,000 word piece Arguing for a Secular State appeared, a 5,000 word piece was loosed upon him by 2 writers from Himpunan Keilmuan Muslim. What I find egregious about the attack on Dr Farouk by Imran Mustafa and Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil in The Bankruptcy of the Islamic vs Secular State Debate is their insinuation that they are "learned scholars and men and women of spiritual discernment and of pure and upright character; scholars and saints," while Dr Farouk is ignorant, superficial, devilish, pretentious, brazen, blind, debilitated, obeisant, simplistic, unreasonable, unfair, futile, inflexible, hypocritical, schizophrenic (I may have missed a few). When respondents resort to name calling, we know the author of the original paper has either exposed a glaring weakness, or has proposed something which could displace the entrenched. Thus my interest in what Dr Farouk has to say. His is a wide ranging article. In the interest of brevity, I'll restrict myself to 6 themes. Hudud. Dr Farouk feels compelled to write about the Islamic/Secular state at this time because the Islamic state, especially in it's manifestation as Hudud, is often raised in the build-up to General Elections. I note that Hudud is the rod MCA repeatedly uses to beat the DAP for the latter's willingness to work together with PAS, the Islamic party in Malaysia. Dr Farouk indicates that PAS is divided over whether the Hudud penal code (which to me means cane those who consume alcohol, cut off the hands of those who steal and stone women who commit adultery) should be implemented. He labels those who support such penalties "medievalists," and labels those who do not support such penalties "Erdoganists." He highlights an alternative view of Hudud which space does not permit me to discuss here.
Dhimmi. Dr Farouk says many Islamists think an Islamic State is comprised of three groups of people: Muslims, Dhimmis and Harbis. Dhimmis are those who agree to submit to Muslims by paying a special tax called jizyah which buys them the protection of the state; Harbis are people who are hostile to Islam. He even points out that well known, centuries-old Islamic laws prohibit Dhimmis from riding animals within city limits and require Dhimmis to wear distinctive clothing and even bells so that it will be clear to all that they are Dhimmis. Tolerance. Dr Farouk's purpose in pointing out those features is to state the obvious: those "medieval" laws are now common knowledge for most Malaysians. I have known about those laws for many years – thanks to the extensive coverage of Islam after 9/11. Dr Farouk is challenging Malaysian Muslim scholars and leaders to recognize that there is a diversity of opinion amongst Muslims about these matters. He's pointing out that large numbers of Malaysian Muslims are also eager to recognize the rights and aspirations of non-Muslims, who are equally citizens of Malaysia. He's pleading for tolerance. Diversity. Dr Farouk brings up the very practical question of "who interprets"? I think immediately of the practice of various difference forms of government in "Islamic" countries – for instance in Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the various expressions of Islam, e.g. Ahmadiyyas, Ismailis, Shiites, Sunnis, Wahhabis, etc. He points out that there is no one person whom Muslims can claim is the final authority, not even the Grand Syeikh of al Azhar and the Saudi Mufti. Further, he points out the difficulty of arguing against those who say "it's mandated by the divine will of God." I recall that this is why churches often caution Christians not to say "God says." Citizenship. Dr Farouk explicitly mentions citizenship. His critique of "medievalism" is not that it's old (which his attackers obtusely say is what he is claiming). His critique of medievalism is that it doesn't have room for present day realities – which include the constitution of Malaysia, the understanding of citizenship and universal human rights. It's easier to attack Dr Farouk for his purported ignorance and deprecation of history, than to face his challenge and answer how the proposed "Islamic state" will work with modern realities. Piety. One of the most compelling of Dr Farouk's passages concerns true piety. He says: "Any regime that imposes piety because of the belief that it is part of the doctrine "commanding the good and preventing the wrong" like Saudi Arabia for instance, is basically creating a community of hypocrites [rather] than genuine piety. Genuine piety only arises through personal choice. And that choice only becomes possible when there is freedom. In other words freedom to sin is a necessary medium to be sincerely pious." That made me think immediately of the hypocrisy in the current regime in Malaysia after 55 years, so eloquently expressed by Tengku Razaleigh: "[Tengku Abdul Rahman] called a press conference and had a beer with his stewards when his horse won at the Melbourne Cup. He had nothing to hide because his great integrity in service was clear to all. Now we have religious and moral hypocrites who cheat, lie and steal in office but never have a drink, who propagate an ideologically shackled education system for all Malaysians while they send their own kids to elite academies in the West." Imran and Aimran's bitter attack caused me to study Dr Farouk's paper carefully. They flaunt their ability to quote stellar Muslims from the history of Islam; they think they show they're "cool" by making reference to the RSA; they choose to ignore the history of Malaya and Malaysia and current realities. I am repelled by their response. I am attracted to Dr Farouk's thought. I respect Dr Farouk for thinking deeply about 20th century realities in our ethnically fractured Malaysia, for taking seriously his neighbours and digging deep into his heritage to unearth and courageously promote such views. You've probably heard the saying "as proud as a peacock," and you may have seen peacocks displaying their feathers, preening, showing off. Do you know that peacocks are worthless and that they can barely fly? They can fly about six metres, but they can't land. They can only crash.
|
| JAIS arrest of book distributor an abuse of power and disregards legal rights Posted: 28 Aug 2012 11:26 PM PDT  Faisal who was today summoned for questioning, on advice by his lawyer Afiq M. Noor of Lawyers for Liberty had informed JAIS that he was exercising his right to silence as provided for under the law. In response JAIS informed Faisal that he was under arrest under section 215 of Enakmen Tatacara Jenayah Syariah (Negeri Selangor) 2003 for failing to answer the questions of religious officers. Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS) today arrested Faisal Mustaffa, Managing Director of independent book distributor Merpati Jingga in connection with Irshad Manji's Bahasa Melayu translation of Allah, Liberty & Love - Allah, Kebebasan dan Cinta. Faisal who was today summoned for questioning, on advice by his lawyer Afiq M. Noor of Lawyers for Liberty had informed JAIS that he was exercising his right to silence as provided for under the law. In response JAIS informed Faisal that he was under arrest under section 215 of Enakmen Tatacara Jenayah Syariah (Negeri Selangor) 2003 for failing to answer the questions of religious officers. If convicted, he can be fined up to RM2,000 or one year imprisonment or both. His lawyer who was accompanying Faisal was also ejected from the interview for advising his client. Faisal was however released on the same day after bail was obtained. The arrest makes a mockery and a serious contravention of Section 61 of the same enactment which prohibits any religious officers from making any threat, inducement or promise in order to obtain a statement. This arrest followed JAIS' raid on Merpati Jingga office on 12 June 2012 where they confiscated 28 copies of books found in the premises including Allah, Kebebasan dan Cinta. Lawyers for Liberty views with serious concern JAIS' harassment, abuse of power and complete disregard for the legal rights of an accused person which amounted to a serious assault on the freedom of speech and the legal safeguards as guaranteed by the Constitution and the law. |
| Statistics Manipulation Allegations Posted: 28 Aug 2012 11:20 PM PDT  Based on statistics provided by PDRM, "index crime" has dropped from 209,572 in 2007 to 157,891 in 2011, or 24.7% over the period. However, "non-index crime" has on the contrary, increased from 42,752 to 72,106 or a massive 68.7% over the same period. The clarification over crime statistics by the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) does not at all exonerate the government but instead clearly indicates data manipulation by the authorities. After nearly a week of silence, the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) finally provided a lengthy reply to the allegations made in an anonymous letter that the authorities have manipulated crime statistics in Malaysia to give a brighter picture. According to the letter, crime cases were being methodically shifted into "non-index" offences that were not registered as part of official statistics presented by efficiency unit PEMANDU. Index crime is defined as crime which is reported with sufficient regularity and with sufficient significance to be meaningful as an index to the crime situation". "Non-index crime", on the other hand, is considered as cases minor in nature and does not occur with such rampancy to warrant its inclusion into the crime statistics or as a benchmark to determine the crime situation. For example, robbery cases, Section 392 (Robbery) and Section 397 (Gang Robbery), under the Penal Code are classified as index crime. This offence will be re-classified as non-index under Section 382 (Theft with Preparation to Cause Hurt or Death) of the Penal Code. Since, Section 382 of the Penal Code is a non-index crime, therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics. PDRM has defended itself from the above key accusation by claiming that even after taking into account non-index crime, "overall crime (Index + Non-Index) has in fact reduced in 2010, 2011 and 2012 (year-to-date)". PDRM claimed that the total index and non-index crime has dropped 7%, 9% and 5.3% respectively in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Hence PDRM concluded that the allegation is erroneous. On the contrary, this simplistic and misleading reply from PDRM has in fact exposed the likelihood that crime data manipulation had indeed taken place extensively. The Government had in fact boasted its achievement of 15.4%, 11.1% and 10.1% reduction in the crime index over 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively as its remarkable achievement under the Crime National Key Result Area (NKRA). The fact that after non-index crime is taken into account, the crime-fighting performance dropped significantly provides strong evidence of manipulation. Based on statistics provided by PDRM, "index crime" has dropped from 209,572 in 2007 to 157,891 in 2011, or 24.7% over the period. However, "non-index crime" has on the contrary, increased from 42,752 to 72,106 or a massive 68.7% over the same period. What is even more glaring is the fact that "non-index crime" is increasing annually as a proportion of total crime since 2007 based on PDRM data. It has increased from 16.9% of total crime in 2007 to 21.9% (2008) to 22.8% (2009) to 29.8% (2010) to a record of 31.4% in 2011. The clear-cut disjoint between the significant drop in "index crime" versus the drastic increase in "non-index crime" points strongly towards data manipulation, and validates the accusation by the anonymous letter writer that the PDRM is systematically re-classifying "index crime" to "non-index crime" cases. If there is indeed no manipulation of data as claimed by PDRM, how else can they explain the shockingly divergent trends between index and non-index crime? Under normal circumstances, if the crime situation in the country has improved as much as boasted by the authorities, then both index and non-index criminal cases should show a declining trend. While the total index and non-index crime cases based on PDRM data has indeed dropped over the past 2-3 years, it appears that the data has been systematically manipulated to present an inflated over-achievement under the Najib administration. The Government Transformation Programme (GTP) Annual Report 2011 has for example, boasted that street crimes have been reduced by a "phenomenal" 39.7%. If the manipulation of crime data is indeed true, the there is no assurance that no other steps have been taken by PDRM or the authorities to use other measures to further reduce the crime index data in order to achieve the desired outcome under Najib's NKRA programme. There is hence a complete absence of credibility in the data presented by the Government and it explains clearly why all the chest-thumping by the authorities over its crime-fighting achievements are not translated into greater sense of security by the ordinary man-on-the-street. |
| Posted: 28 Aug 2012 09:37 PM PDT
The reporter sought to clarify from Mat Sabu, "Bolehkah kami kata sebegini, PAS memang berhasrat membuat amendment konstitusi melalui Parlimen untuk melaksanakan semua undang-undang, termasuk undang-undang Hudud?" Mat Sabu replied, "Boleh." Sin Chew Daily Sin Chew Daily published on its August 28 edition a news article titled "PAS to implement Hudud Law if it wins the election," quoting PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu. On the following day, Mat Sabu told the online media that Sin Chew Daily had published a news report which was factually incorrect. He also pointed out in the party's mouthpiece Harakah that Sin Chew Daily had misinterpreted him. Some online media had accused Sin Chew Daily of intentionally marring the image of Pakatan Rakyat through the manipulation of this issue. As a matter of fact, our reporter conducted an interview with Mat Sabu pursuant to a statement issued by PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang after the party's political and election bureau meeting on August 25, stating that the party had the intention of implementing the Hudud Law through democratic process, as reported on Harakah. Since the issue is a major concern of the Chinese community, our reporter followed up the issue to fulfill his journalistic obligations. The reporter sought to clarify from Mat Sabu, "Bolehkah kami kata sebegini, PAS memang berhasrat membuat amendment konstitusi melalui Parlimen untuk melaksanakan semua undang-undang, termasuk undang-undang Hudud?" Mat Sabu replied, "Boleh." Mat Sabu also said his party had yet to discuss tabling the motion in the Parliament, and would only take the next course of action after Pakatan had won the next general election. The above had become the basis of our article. Immediately after Mat Sabu made the accusation through other media that Sin Chew Daily had misinterpreted him, the paper had been trying to contact him through phone and SMS in hope of obtaining clarification from him but to no avail. Prior and after this incident, Sin Chew Daily also reported the views of other PAS leaders such as the party's spiritual leader Nik Aziz, secretary-general Mustafa Ali, information chief Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man and PAS Supporters Congress president Hu Pang Chaw. Their views are consistent with what had been reported in our news article. Hu Pang Chaw, a member of PAS' political bureau, confirmed that the bureau had indeed made a decision to try to implement the Hudud Law. On August 28, Sin Chew Daily also published the full statement issued by PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang on the Harakah webiste about the implementation of the Hudud Law. The article included many advantages and positive aspects of the Islamic faith. In addition, we also interviewed several leaders from other Pakatan parties such as DAP and Keadilan Rakyat, and published their feedback on the issue. We strongly believe that all our news reports on this matter have been written in compliance with the principles of comprehensive, objective and factual news reporting as required by the journalism ethic.
|
| Posted: 27 Aug 2012 01:13 PM PDT
Are there any technicalities in the case of Afizal? In relation to sex with the minor, what should we call Afizal? Fool? Idol? Monster? Neighbour? Statutory Rapist? Stud? Rapist? Unlucky? Victim? When we look in the mirror, what do we see? Rama Ramanathan Several who read my last post have asked me to repeat the comment which was deleted. First, I must repeat that the administrator of the site has informed me that my comment was not deleted, and it was most likely lost due to an FB glitch. I must add that the administrator said some very kind words about my posts and my comments, for which I am grateful. Second, I don't remember exactly what I had written. Third, and more importantly, I think it was unwise of me to post the comment: I think I should have written it as another article. Here I will attempt to do so. My comment was about our responses to Afizal, the national bowler who pleaded guilty to statutory rape, but was not jailed. The preceding sentence could be written in several ways. If I had written "pleaded guilty to rape" or "was not jailed for committing rape," some would accuse me of suggesting the bowler committed a violent crime. According to some, the bowler committed statutory rape, not rape. They say he's not a rapist. They say if we must label him, we must call him a statutory rapist, not a rapist. They say that if we don't do as they say, we lack compassion. They are unimpressed by our arguments that statutory rape is classified as rape, so the offender is a rapist. They say the two 'offences' (they are reluctant to use the word 'crime' for what the bowler did) are dissimilar, so we should distinguish between them. They say rape involves violence and an unwilling party, whom they agree is "a victim." They say statutory rape doesn't always involve a victim – they say it could be consenting sex. They recognize that by law a minor (under 16 years of age, not 18), by law, cannot give consent. But they argue that this is a technicality. They bring us to the edge. They ask "what if she were 16 yrs plus 1 day old?" They ask "what if she were 16 yrs minus 1 day old?" They take it further. They ask "who, by looking, can accurately tell the age of a person?" They say it's not significant that there is a five year difference in age between the bowler and the minor (she was 13+, he was 18+). [I'm ignoring those whose arguments are centred on the 18 year age which legally separates boys from men.] They remind us that we ourselves routinely break laws – we beat the lights, cheat on taxes, exceed speed limits. They say that just as we give ourselves a break, we should give others a break. Especially in cases involving sex and minors. They want us to look in the mirror and see just how grotesque we are for insisting upon respecting the technical definition of a minor: a "technicality," according to them. We know there is some truth to what they say. I think back to an occasion when I was embarrassed to learn a girl whom I thought was an adult was only 14. We know what cosmetics, clothes and conversation can do to mask age. We know young people who "experiment" and do the silliest things. We know the age of consent is not the same everywhere: marriage at 13 is permitted in some nations. But we cringe at the word "technicality." We cringe when "the compassionate" say we are appealing to a technicality when we suggest that the prosecutor was right to expect the court to send the bowler to prison. [Though we know Malaysian prisons are dangerous places, where the number of deaths in custody is extremely high.] We cringe at the word "technicality" because we know it can be used to hound people. We know, we are sure, that if Rafizi's release of National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) bank transactions is in breach of the BAFIA (Banking and Financial Institutions Act), the breach is a "technicality" and the AG should not prosecute Rafizi. After all, Rafizi was acting as a whistle blower – even though the Whistle Blower Act only allows Rafizi to report the information to the authorities, not to the public. "The compassionate" know, and are sure, Afizal should be given the benefit of the doubt. After all, he admitted guilt (actually he changed his plea to guilty after the minor's father spoke during the first hearing). After all, it's possible that he didn't know the girl was a minor. After all, it's possible that she was the one who wanted it (she may even have written something to this effect). After all, many countries have created a special category of offences which they call "young people's offences." This is the world we live in. What kind of world do we live in? Let me put it to you bluntly. We live in a world in which many girls get to use make-up, go to spas, dress like adults, watch television and surf the web unsupervised, etc. before they reach the age of consent. We live in a world where males just want to have fun, and women think of men as playthings: remember Sex in the City? We live in a world which pays more attention to image than to substance. We live in a world which looks for people to idolize – whether film stars, CEO's or athletes. We live in a world which focuses on individual rights, not the common good. We live in a world which pretends that premarital sex is the norm. In all the ranting and raging, how much have you heard about refraining from sex before marriage? Are those who promote "no sex before marriage" just silly? Many secretly approve what the bowler's girlfriend said: "if you're not involved, butt out." People don't think that what they do in private affects the fabric of the community. Many think you can do anything and get away with it – all you need is a team of lawyers who can find "technicalities" to get you off the hook. Are there any technicalities in the case of Afizal? In relation to sex with the minor, what should we call Afizal? Fool? Idol? Monster? Neighbour? Statutory Rapist? Stud? Rapist? Unlucky? Victim? When we look in the mirror, what do we see? Postscript: I awoke with a deep sense that this article will never satisfy me this side of heaven, for there is a tension between compassion and justice which will remain unresolved. The word which chokes in our throats is not "technicality;" it's "justice." We choke because we know laws and justice this side of heaven are imperfect, but necessary: for evil must be restrained if we are to live in community. We choke because we know we are superficial if in all our thinking about Afizal and the minor we don't consider God, justice, laws, heaven, earth and hell. We choke because we know the very existence of laws implies a place of punishment for those who willfully disobey. Also, we choke because we don't want to talk about chastity, the "elephant" that was in that hotel room together with Afizal and the minor, past midnight one day 3 years ago in Malacca. I end with a quote from C S Lewis (the man who wrote the Narnia chronicles): "The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union. The Christian attitude does not mean that there is anything wrong about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It means that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again." C S Lewis, Mere Christianity |
| Merdeka Day bash at Bukit Jalil Stadium Posted: 27 Aug 2012 12:56 PM PDT
A set-back for nation-building by 55 years when Malaysian public excluded from the 100,000-seat capacity stadium which is reserved for "BN invites" only The Malaysiakini report last night stated that Kamaruddin, when asked why opposition parties were not included in the seating plan, said that "opposition party members could join the rest of the crowd outside the stadium". Lim Kit Siang Last night, in response to the Malaysiakini report "Bukit Jalil Merdeka Day bash for invites only", I penned five tweets, viz: 1. Scandalous! Outrageous! What Merdeka D bash is this? http://goo.gl/H1IpV Bukit Jalil Merdeka Day bash is invite only- Sara Ghazie(Mkini) 2. "Got like that one meh?" exclamation will be heard throughout country when Malaysians read "Bukit Jalil Merdeka Day bash is invite only" 3. No better proof of BN hijacking Merdeka Day celebrations - 1st BN election slogan of "Janji Ditepati" n now 100k Stadium largely BN invites 4. With MerdekaDay bash BtJalil Stadium hijacked by BN pumped up by rent-MerdekaDay-crowds, all pretence of 1Malaysia inclusive thrown 2winds 5. What irony 4Najib's 1Msia signature slogan! "Bukit Jalil Merdeka Day bash is invite only" has set back nation-building in Msia by 55 years! This morning, the Minister for Information, Communications and Culture, Datuk Seri Dr. Rais Yatim "clarified" that the official Merdeka Day celebration at Bukit Jallil Stadium on Friday is opened to the public, saying: "The allegation made by certain people that the Merdeka 55 gathering at Bukit Jalil will be only for invitees is not true. "It is deplorable for certain opposition leader to try to foil what is to be the rakyat's right to commemorate nation's 55th birthday." Rais need not be so coy as he could name me as the one who had responded to the Malaysiakini report on the Malaysian twitterverse. if I am wrong or mistaken, I am prepared to retract and apologise as I have no intention to spoil, foil or sabotage the Merdeka Day bash planned by the Barisan Nasional government at Bukit Jalil Stadium, although I strongly disagree with the manner in which the Barisan Nasional is hijacking the 55th Merdeka Day/49th Malaysia Day celebrations, causing even greater division and dissension among Malaysians instead of sparking a transcending sense of Malaysian one-ness rising above race, religion, region or political affiliation in keeping with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's 1Malaysia policy on both these national celebrations. However, as a result of Rais' comments, I have revisited the Malaysiakini report last night as well as my five tweets to ascertain whether I have inadvertently made any mistakes or whether the Malaysiakini report had erred. But I have found neither.There is no denial or retraction of the statement attributed to the Information, Communications and Culture Ministry secretary-general Kamaruddin Siaraf that members of the public could only witness the 55th Merdeka Day "bash" from four screens outside the Bukit Jalil stadium. This has been further confirmed by the seating arrangement released by Kamaruddin yesterday where only VIPs, BN component party members, civil servants, schoolchildren and other specially-picked groups - including two minor BN-friendly political parties, Indian Progressive Front (IPF) and Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress (Kimma) – have been allocated seats in the 100,000-seat capacity stadium. The Malaysiakini report last night stated that Kamaruddin, when asked why opposition parties were not included in the seating plan, said that "opposition party members could join the rest of the crowd outside the stadium". He said dismissively: "They can come on the 'tiket rakyat (people's ticket)' No problem." After reviewing the Malaysiakini reports last night and Rais' comments today, I stand by my five tweets last night that the Merdeka Day bash at Bukit Jalil Stadium is scandalous, outrageous and a set-back for nation-building by 55 years when Malaysian public are excluded from the 100,000-seat capacity stadium which is reserved for "BN invites" only. Clearly the Najib administration has never heard or understood the statement "The People Are the Boss" in a parliamentary democracy. How much would the Merdeka Day bash at Bukit Jalil Stadium cost? Would Barisan Nasional pay for the bash from the BN coffers? As the Malaysian taxpayers will have to pay for the Merdeka Day bash at Bukit Jalil Stadium, how can the Malaysian public be treated as "outsiders", relegated to outside the stadium to watch from four screens? They might as well stay at home to watch the live telecast instead!
|
| Posted: 27 Aug 2012 12:51 PM PDT
First, they pull wool over our eyes where crime statistics are concerned. When we got around it, they then, decide to "reduce" these statistics by puffing out those whom they suspect. Is that the case? Suspect. Judge. Execute! No legal redress? May Chee Chook Ying I, too, have a son. If my son went out for supper and not come back, I would die. How can any of This is not just another death. It's not just another statistic. Someone got killed in cold-blood. And he was someone's son. He was engaged to be married. There's some girl out there, happily waiting for her Big Day. It's the day she has been waiting for, all her life. Then, she receives a call, telling her the love of her life was gunned down, just like that. Will it make any sense to her? What is she to think? Or feel? I can't even begin to imagine what his loved ones are going through. Can you? Now and then, in the most democratic country in the world, you hear of these extrajudicial killings. Wikipedia defines an extrajudicial killing as "the killing of a person by government authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. Extrajudicial punishments are by their nature, UNLAWFUL, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur". First, they pull wool over our eyes where crime statistics are concerned. When we got around it, they then, decide to "reduce" these statistics by puffing out those whom they suspect. Is that the case? Suspect. Judge. Execute! No legal redress? Is Malaysia the most democratic country in the world or a lawless jungle? Are our law enforcers so ill-trained that they cannot use due process to first apprehend, question and if necessary, throw the book at the suspects, etc? Or so cowardly that they had to shoot to kill? You had guns, guys, they didn't! There are ways to subdue suspects, no? There are better ways to enforce the law, no? Must kill? NO! Another life lost is one, too many. These extrajudicial killings have got to stop! Period! Our cops have to be better vetted, recruited and trained. We can't see a cop and fear for our lives, can we? Between robbers that rob and cops that kill, are we not sandwiched between the devil and the deep blue sea? I believe most of all would prefer to lose things than to be snuffed out, just like that! You know what I'm thinking? All that's been happening lately? Our public institutions and powers-that-be lack COURAGE! It is so telling! Cops shoot to kill when they only suspect. Detractors to the powers-that-be are falsely accused of atrocities, left and right. Unfounded fears forced down our throats. An education and grading system that render the majority of our children incompetent globally. Mainstream media that lie, again and again. Decisions by the courts that are wanting. The list goes on. Who is lacking courage, here in Malaysia? The majority? Or only those who want to hang onto something they don't deserve or are ill-equipped for? Some dopes here in Malaysia, talk so big and loud but all I see are fools preying on the fears and insecurities of another. You call yourself courageous? Look into the eyes of your kids and tell them, everything you did, you did it for the good of the nation. If you are that intelligent, how come our coffers are empty and we are borrowing so much? If you care so much for other Malaysians or even for just your own kind, how come the poor are getting poorer and you, richer and responsible for the massive capital flight out of the country? We had rubber. We had tin. We, then turned to palm oil. We still have some oil. Everything we brought in or dug out turned to gold. We were so blessed. What happened? Some dopes gambled our fortune away. When they hit jackpot, they kept the winnings for themselves. When they lost and they lost, big time, they pulverized the country's coffers. Do we still want to be with them? I don't know about you but I intend to live my life in the Light. I intend to seek the Truth. I don't intend to live with radioactive elements making their way into my body. I don't intend to have rogues gunning down my kids in broad daylight. I don't want to see my neighbour go naked, hungry and uneducated anymore. But I can't do this alone. Please, help me. Malaysians, please arise and demand change. Change for the better before it's too late. Do it for our precious children. We brought them into this world to give them life; to embrace life as they should with wander and in awe. If we stick to the status quo, what's there to look forward to? Remember, #Dinesh could have been your son. God bless. |
| Many reasons why it’s actually “Janji tak ditepati” Posted: 25 Aug 2012 04:41 AM PDT
Daniel John Jambun This year's slogan for the national day celebration, "Janji ditepati" has courted a lot of controversy not only because it violates the sanctity of the national celebration by converting it into a BN election campaign but also because it is so easy to argue with. It was a mistake on the part of BN to have chosen the slogan because the statement of the slogan itself invites criticisms and arguments. BN has forgotten that the national celebration is for all Malaysians regardless of party affiliation, so BN is really making an outrageous blunder, or showing plain arrogance, by making even the national celebration its own celebration. By doing so, BN has alienated the rakyat who are in the opposition. Now there is no reason for the opposition to celebrate the national day together because it has become "BN's Day"! There is no reason for people in the opposition to be patriotic with the national day because to celebrate it means to support BN! BN has forgotten that its duty is to celebrate the national day on behalf of ALL the people. The national day belongs to the people NOT to BN! No wonder the number of flags being put up on shops, offices, houses and vehicles have suddenly dwindled to ALMOST ZERO compared to previous years. Now even the Jalur Gemilang has a strong tinge of BN's arrogance so much so that many people no longer feel any patriotic feeling when they see flapping in the wind. Is BN so desperate or so frightened of losing the next general election that it is using everything and anything it can get its hands on, even the people's patriotic heritage to glorify itself? Or is it so overconfident or simply super-arrogant that it thinks that it will gain a lot of political mileage by making it a part of the BN propaganda? Apparently that is the case, and because of this the whole meaning of patriotism has been hijacked and damaged. From the BN's viewpoint patriotism means supporting the BN while from the viewpoint of the opposition patriotism means saving the nation from the abuses of the BN! So now it is meaningless for the BN to appeal to the people's sense of patriotism because when the Prime Minister or any top BN leader talks about patriotism they know it means only one thing, "Come and support the BN" and "Supporting the opposition means destroying the country." So, in a way, being patriotic in Malaysia nowadays is to come in cahoots with robbers! But back to the problem of "Janji Ditepati." If we were to list and discuss all the issues which prove that this is not an honest statement, it would fill up several books. But here is a sampling of only a few cases. One, the security for Sabah in Malaysia. When Sabah was considering whether to join the formation of Malaysia, the rational bandied about for doing so was the supposed threat from the Philippines which had been claiming Sabah and the threat by Sukarno's konfrontasi to "Ganyang Malaysia" before the cockerel crows on the dawn of September 16, 1963, that without Malaysia, Sabah would be invaded and colonized by Indonesia. But strangely history had shown that these threats didn't go far as proven by the fact that Brunei not only survived but prospered. And when we became part of the federation we didn't really get the security that we were promised. Very ironically it were the Filipinos and Indonesians who actually invaded Sabah, not as military forces, but as illegal immigrants, and all the security forces of Malaysia – the army, the border police, the immigration officials – couldn't or wouldn't stop them! Where was the promise to guarantee us security? Two, the promise not to 'colonization' of Sabah. Donald Stephens biggest worry was that Sabah would escape from the clutches of British colonialization and fall into being a colony of Malaya. The Tunku then made a promise that Sabah and Sarawak would not become the 12th and 13th states of Malaya. But this is what had happened. We are now unitary states instead of being independent, equal-partner nations in the federation as was originally understood. The promise not to colonize Sabah was flagrantly broken. Three, there is no compliance by the federal government on the five constitutional documents and/or constitutional conventions (the Federal Constitution, the Malaysia Agreement, the 20 Points, the IGC Report, and the Batu Oath Stone) which formed the basis for Sabah & Sarawak's equal partnership as nations in Malaysia. Four, why wasn't there a proper constitution drafted and passed? What we have is actually the constitution of the federation of Malaya amended to become what is now the "Federal Constitution" which is the real reason why it is not called the "Malaysian Constitution." When they came up with the decision to use the Malayan constitution as a basis for the constitution we have now, there was already a hidden agenda. We were played out from even before the start of Malaysia. Five, the rights and autonomy for Sabah. The 20 Points has many points which promised certain rights and autonomy for Sabah. These have now been taken away, eroded or simply denied, often without any proper legal process. That is why we no longer have freedom not to have any official religion, right to arrange our own education system, to determine our own immigration rules and to retain the collection of our own taxes and use it in accordance to our own economic plans. The 20 Points in fact is a list of not only broken promises but a list of rights and autonomy which were then taken away unceremoniously. Six, we were not consulted before the decision was made to expel Singapore from Malaysia. This means Malaya thought that the views of Sabah and Sarawak as components of the federation were immaterial and irrelevant in matters of such a critical and vital decision as expelling a partner. This was simple arrogance, a condescending attitude, taking us for granted because our leaders in Sabah were seen as people who could be forced to accept Malaya's decision. Only one leader, Donald Stephens, demanded for a review of the Malaysia Agreement and to silence him he was sent or "ice-boxed" to Australia as Malaysia's ambassador. Seven, the Sabah Baru promise. When BN took over the state government in Sabah in 1994, there was a huge announcement of a promise to create "Sabah Baru" (a New Sabah) within 100 days. Now after 18 years we do have a 'new Sabah' – a Sabah depleted of its natural forests which had caused the death of ecosystems and many rivers, a Sabah mired in poverty and abject poverty with 40 percent of Malaysia's poor, a Sabah which is the poorest in Malaysia. BN had promised a dream but delivered a nightmare! And the situation is not improving. In fact things are getting worse. The state continues to be flooded with illegal immigrants, and the solution is not forthcoming because the recently-announced RCI is not expected to solve it largely because it has no provision to penalize those culprits behind the problem, and that obviously it was announced only as an election ploy. Janji ditepati? You be the judge.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan